Morals without God?

When I first started getting into apologetics and heard about what is called the "Moral Argument" I was baffled that one would even consider using something so subjective as an objective stand point in trying a prove the existence of God. I mean we all know what is right and wrong, we were raised to understand these concepts. But what the Moral Argument gets at is not the action of right and wrong but the foundations of Morals, more precisely the existence of Objective Morals.

For example, We all know that if a man rapes and kills a little girl the question is not "was that right or wrong?" the question is "how severally this individual should be punished".

I think there's common confusion among those who don't quite understand what the Moral Argument entails

It's goes like this:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
 

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
 

3. Therefore, God exists.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This is not to say that one can't recognize right and wrong but that if God does not exist than there is no OBJECTIVE foundation for their belief in right and wrong.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

What this premise is saying, is something we can all agree with! That we can all recognize right and wrong!

3. Therefore, God exists.

Because we can all recognize right and wrong, and have moral duties then we can conclude that God exists.

Objections to the Moral Argument:

Biological Morality? Man developed Morality through Biology and Evolution.

With this objection comes the question, how can Objective Morality and Duties come out of a Neutral Nature? When a Lion kills a Zebra we don't call that murder. Animals don't have morals. Now of course, there is a huge difference between us and animals but I think if we look at nature we don't see any sign of Morality coming out of any other species than humans. Given they all went through the evolution process, Why did human only develop Morality? and what is that Morality based on?

Morality based on the well being of humans? 

Another common objection to the Moral Argument is that Morality is based off of what benefits the well being of humans. My response is how can we know that what we think benefits humans actually benefits humans. There's still no foundation for Objective Morality.

Let's go back to the example above. We can all agree that what being done is objectively wrong but to further probe, Why is that objectively wrong? What is our foundation for morality? Can morality be explained purely on naturalistic terms?

    

I'm still waiting on the answer to these questions. 

The position of the modern evolutionist … is that humans have an awareness of morality … because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. …Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. … Nevertheless, … such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, … and any deeper meaning is illusory...


-Michael Ruse